Hacker News Reader

Comment by phaemon | Hacker News Reader

So people keep claiming, but I've yet to see a single example of an actual Tesla owner who was confused about this.

The person in this story wasn't confused and didn't even attempt a defense that Tesla had mislead them.

So he and his passenger went to sleep fully knowing that Tesla's driving assist could fail at any moment? You mean, they were both suicidal? Much more plausible is that he is scared to implicate Tesla into this.

Tesla marks all these features as beta on the menu where you activate them, and pops up a long warning text explicitly stating the limitations. I don’t think Tesla could do much more than they already do.

They’ve oversold the tech and the capabilities in multiple public statements. Musk said they would have a fully autonomous cross country trip by 2017, and said there would be 500,000 robo-taxis on the road by the end of this year. These claims make the general public assume the tech is almost ready and that disclaimers are just a legal CYA. Why else would people be trusting their life to something that could fail at any moment.

The only thing that makes me question is that only around 5 people have been killed by a Tesla on autopilot or FSD, which frankly is shocking to me given the multiple videos of abuse of these systems floating around the internet.

Describing driving assist as "beta FSD" is already grossly misleading, and still my point stands, either they were mislead or they were suicidal.

I was highly skeptical of these systems too: for normal freeway driving, Tesla’s systems are much better than I expected them to be. There’s no way I would be comfortable enough to sleep in my car, as a programmer, but I could imagine someone getting overconfident. This has always been a major risk with semi-automated systems: I believe airplanes dialed back the functionality of autopilots to prevent pilot complacency.

OK that is a good point. So you are saying, maybe the marketing wasn't what misled the driver, but the abilities of the system. A system that fails 1% of the time will give a the user overconfidence up until the first time it fails.

Yeah, this is a good way to put it.

>airplanes dialed back the functionality of autopilots to prevent pilot complacency.

Or maybe because the potential for disaster is too great, like the 737 max attempting to nosedive into the ocean because of a single sensor failure.

This is a well-known issue: when automation gets good enough that the human in the loop starts to get bored, it can be more dangerous than either “all human” or “all computer”

Automated flying reminded me of this incident in India - some pilots used to cover the windows of their cockpit with newspapers after take off, presumably to have a short nap!

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/business/global/26airindi...

Disengage all driver assist tech when the seats are reclined beyond a certain point.

If you feel like having some ‘fun’ (in a Dwarf Fortress sense) read about Leran Cai’s driving record and some of the arguments they have previously used in court. I’m nowhere near qualified to know what’s up with this dude but holy crap, someone make popcorn...:)

You're ignoring the range of risk between safe and suicidal. Someone who drives down the highway at 100 MPH may be reckless but not suicidal. It's the same sort of thing. A stupid risk but far from a certainty of death.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com